Bentz et al v. Butler et al

Filing 87

ORDER TAKING UNDER ADVISEMENT: 84 MOTION for Reconsideration. Responses due by 7/15/2016. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donald G. Wilkerson on 6/22/16. (sgp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
DAVID ROBERT BENTZ,
Plaintiff,
v.
KIMBERLY BUTLER, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 3:14-cv-996-NJR-DGW

ORDER
WILKERSON, Magistrate Judge:
Now pending before the Court is the “Motion for Reconsideration of Preliminary
Injunction . . .”, which the Court construes as a Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, filed by
Plaintiff on January 15, 2016 (Doc. 84). The Motion is TAKEN UNDER ADVISEMENT.
In this Motion, Plaintiff complains of the excessive heat in the prison where he is housed,
the Menard Correctional Center, and the lack of any provisions to alleviate the heat. Plaintiff
requests an emergency hearing on the issues and preliminary injunctive relief to alleviate the
negative effects of excessive heat. Plaintiff represents, in part, that:
1. Prison guards are “leaving this Plaintiff and inmates to literally cook, and possibly die
within the cells.”
2. “All Defendants/staff are very well aware of these unconstitutional conditions and refuse
to remedy them because they are intentionally punishing inmates and trying to kill inmates
by means of excessive heat.”
3. “This plaintiff suffers from injuries, hand, neck, tooth, vision and others that are all
inflamed by excessive heat and suffers heat related issues to no avail that cause this
plaintiff inability to write . . .”
(Doc. 84, spelling and some grammar corrected).
Plaintiff is well aware that a preliminary injunction is an “extraordinary and drastic

Page 1 of 3

remedy” for which there must be a “clear showing” that he is entitled to relief. Mazurek v.
Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997) (quoting 11A CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT, ARTHUR R MILLER,
& MARY KAY KANE, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE §2948 (5th ed. 1995)). The purpose of
such an injunction is “to minimize the hardship to the parties pending the ultimate resolution of the
lawsuit.” Faheem-El v. Klincar, 841 F.2d 712, 717 (7th Cir. 1988). Plaintiff has the burden of
demonstrating:
1. a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits;
2. no adequate remedy at law; and
3. irreparable harm absent the injunction.
Planned Parenthood v. Commissioner of Indiana State Dept. Health, 699 F.3d 962, 972 (7th Cir.
2012). As to the first hurdle, the Court must determine whether “plaintiff has any likelihood of
success – in other words, a greater than negligible chance of winning.” AM General Corp. v.
DaimlerChrysler Corp., 311 F.3d 796, 804 (7th Cir. 2002). Once Plaintiff has met his burden, the
Court must weigh “the balance of harm to the parties if the injunction is granted or denied and also
evaluate the effect of an injunction on the public interest.” Id.; Korte v. Sebelius, 735 F.3d 654,
665 (7th Cir. 2013). “This equitable balancing proceeds on a sliding-scale analysis; the greater
the likelihood of success of the merits, the less heavily the balance of harms must tip in the moving
party’s favor.” Korte, 735 F.3d at 665. In addition, the Prison Litigation Reform Act provides
that a preliminary injunction must be “narrowly drawn, extend no further than necessary to correct
the harm . . . ,” and “be the least intrusive means necessary to correct that harm.” 18 U.S.C. §
3626(a)(2).

Finally, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d)(2), a preliminary

injunction would bind only the parties, their officers or agents, or persons in active concert with the
parties or their agents.

Page 2 of 3

Plaintiff makes no argument as to the likelihood of success on the merits. Plaintiff also
has not presented any evidence to support the factual statements made above, that he is “cooking”
in his cell, that correctional officers are intentionally punishing him and trying to kill him with the
heat, and that Plaintiff’s health issues are exacerbated by the excessive heat. It should be noted
Mr. Bentz is the only Plaintiff in this suit; so, the Court is not in a position issue injunctive relief as
to other inmates. In light of Plaintiff’s apparent penchant for exaggeration (See Doc. 36, fn. 1),
1

more is required prior to hauling Defendants into Court to argue this Motion. To that end,

Plaintiff is ORDERED to provide the Court with evidence of the statements made in his Motion.
Such evidence shall be submitted by July 5, 2016. Defendants shall respond to the Motion and
evidence submitted by Plaintiff by July 15, 2016. If necessary a hearing will be set after the
response has been filed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: June 22, 2016

DONALD G. WILKERSON
United States Magistrate Judge

1

In which the Court chastised Plaintiff about mischaracterizing himself as elderly and further
cautioned Plaintiff about the penalties of being dishonest during the course of this litigation.
Page 3 of 3